Woolworths Ltd v Fassina Investments Pty Ltd

Woolworths Ltd appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia against a decision of the licensing judge who refused its application for a retail liquor merchant's licence for premises within the Arndale Shopping Centre. The dispute concerned whether the existing facilities for the sale of liquor in the locality adequately met public demand, a prerequisite for the grant of a new licence.

The court was required to determine the proper interpretation and application of section 58(2) of the *Liquor Licensing Act 1997* (SA), which stipulates that a licence shall not be granted unless the licensing authority is satisfied that the public demand for liquor in the locality cannot be met by other existing facilities. Specifically, the court had to consider what constitutes "adequately met" in the context of public demand and existing liquor sales facilities, and whether mere inconvenience or preference for a particular shopping location is sufficient to establish that demand is not adequately met.

The Full Court reasoned that while the current legislation, section 58(2), differs in language from its predecessor, section 38 of the *Liquor Licensing Act 1985* (SA), the underlying principle remains focused on the adequacy of existing facilities. The court affirmed that simply demonstrating a demand for liquor or a preference for a particular outlet is insufficient. Instead, the licensing authority must assess whether, by contemporary standards, existing premises adequately cater for that demand, considering factors such as reasonable travel distances, time, and the expected range of products and services. The court noted that while the previous legislation allowed for consideration of "unreasonable difficulty and inconvenience," the current provision requires a direct assessment of whether existing facilities adequately meet demand, applying contemporary standards and the specialist knowledge of the Licensing Court.

The Full Court allowed the appeal, finding that the licensing judge had erred in his application of section 58(2). The court remitted the matter to the licensing judge to determine whether the public demand for liquor in the locality was adequately met by existing facilities, applying the correct legal principles.